War in Ukraine

[rm2551]

11 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

In fact, they've exceeded all of their pre-war aims.

Clearly, they aimed to sack Kiev and take control of the country, install a puppet regime or simply annex the whole thang back to the motherland. I'd say their pre-war aims were close, but no cigar. There is zero chance they thought this open ended war would be the result. No one predicted that (including the west).

2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

This is not the conflict Russia sought, they were goaded into it.

Putin wanted to reconstitute the old glory days. It is not the conflict Russia sought because they assumed (Putin was told by his insanely corrupt and terrified Generals) that they could march into Kiev and put down whatever local resistance emerged within a week. He didn't need to be goaded. For all money, they were going to take over.

They were wrong and are now stuck. Putin wants no offramp as offramps are also his personal offramp from power. So on they go with the meat grinder. Where the convicts are torturing and raping the conscripts on the contact lines while their squad commanders are miles from the front. The Russian advances are just not sustainable with current losses for ground gained.

[JohnOsbourne]

22 minutes ago, rm2551 said:

Clearly, they aimed to sack Kiev and take control of the country, install a puppet regime or simply annex the whole thang back to the motherland. I'd say their pre-war aims were close, but no cigar. There is zero chance they thought this open ended war would be the result. No one predicted that (including the west).

The original strike force was WAY too small to take a city of Kiev's size.  The Russians clearly thought that after a show of force, Zelensky's government would wise up and get serious about negotiating Russia's concerns, and in fact they were until (as is well known) MI-6 sent in their stooge BoJo (you'd think someone as corrupt as he is could afford a goddamn comb) to tell the midget coke fiend that the US-UK was going to fight to the last Ukrainian. 

I think everyone (Russia, China, ordinary Americans, etc.) is shocked at how completely bat-shit crazy the US Imperium has gone over all of this.  So, their operation necessarily evolved.  But there is no evidence that Russia ever wanted complete control of the entire territory of Ukraine.  As they've stated for a long time, they would not accept a US military satellite on their border with Ukraine (i.e. NATO) and the rights of the Russian-speaking majority in the east (who wants nothing to do with Kiev) had to be respected.  I.e. the aims were strictly limited.  

In fact, it's the US that has created an open-ended war that threatens Imperial stability.  They can pour all kinds of weapons into the Ukraine (thus enriching the MIC), but unless they can do voodoo, they're not gonna summon an army of dead soldiers to use them (the Ukraine is rapidly running out of men to press-gang, it will be funny if they start rounding up women).  And they need to control Russia's resources before they can fight China (their ultimate goal).  Throw in the third front in the ME (which is clearly going so well, a fleet of cheap drones is scaring off expensive warships), and the GAE is truly fucked.  

[reids]

…

R😎

[hummingbird69]

[rm2551]

8 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

The original strike force was WAY too small to take a city of Kiev's size.  The Russians clearly thought that after a show of force, Zelensky's government would wise up and get serious about negotiating Russia's concerns, and in fact they were until (as is well known) MI-6 sent in their stooge BoJo (you'd think someone as corrupt as he is could afford a goddamn comb) to tell the midget coke fiend that the US-UK was going to fight to the last Ukrainian. 

I think everyone (Russia, China, ordinary Americans, etc.) is shocked at how completely bat-shit crazy the US Imperium has gone over all of this.  So, their operation necessarily evolved.  But there is no evidence that Russia ever wanted complete control of the entire territory of Ukraine.  As they've stated for a long time, they would not accept a US military satellite on their border with Ukraine (i.e. NATO) and the rights of the Russian-speaking majority in the east (who wants nothing to do with Kiev) had to be respected.  I.e. the aims were strictly limited.  

In fact, it's the US that has created an open-ended war that threatens Imperial stability.  They can pour all kinds of weapons into the Ukraine (thus enriching the MIC), but unless they can do voodoo, they're not gonna summon an army of dead soldiers to use them (the Ukraine is rapidly running out of men to press-gang, it will be funny if they start rounding up women).  And they need to control Russia's resources before they can fight China (their ultimate goal).  Throw in the third front in the ME (which is clearly going so well, a fleet of cheap drones is scaring off expensive warships), and the GAE is truly fucked.  

I whole heartedly disagree with this. Respect john, I want to understand your view and don't mean offence.

The original strike force was exactly what the strategy called for according to Putin's finest military loyalists: for taking Kiev and cutting the political head off Ukraine. It failed.

The bat-shit crazy US Imperium I don't get.

"As they've stated for a long time, they would not accept a US military satellite on their border with Ukraine (i.e. NATO) and the rights of the Russian-speaking majority in the east (who wants nothing to do with Kiev) had to be respected.  I.e. the aims were strictly limited." - indeed. But who's decision is that? (to choose a democratic/western path vs. autocratic 'give us our leader forever and we will yield!' alternative). That is the ONLY question. Ukraine looked west. While you can easily see why that's going to be unacceptable for the "East", the only question is do they get to decide for themselves? If not, why not? They were not and are not perfect by most measures, but this is CLEARLY what the population want. I can't see how Russia is not purely wrong here.

Putin has consistently said negotiations with Ukraine will only begin when "we have completed our objectives". So what was/is the objective? We can disagree here. for mine, it was clearly to absorb Ukraine by puppet ruler or total annexation. Putin wanted that territory. Putin wants the old empire. As much as he can get. As does the US, China, and anyone else who emerges.

"US created an open ended war to threaten Imperial stability." - again, not sure I understand. Russia did not start this war? You support "imperial stability"???

The Us turning it into an open ended conflict - maybe - and for a variety of reasons real or imagined. But that was not by design, it is a reaction, so don't assign intent.

 

[JohnOsbourne]

13 hours ago, rm2551 said:

But who's decision is that? (to choose a democratic/western path vs. autocratic 'give us our leader forever and we will yield!' alternative). That is the ONLY question.

No, it's completely irrelevant.  Ukraine is free to seek out whatever alliances it wants, but the US is under no obligation to grant them their wishes.  There is NO legitimate American interest that requires having a military alliance with the Ukraine.  What do you think the US would do if China tried to form a military alliance with Mexico?  What did the US do during the Cuban missile crisis?

"You support "imperial stability"???"

No, I love the old American Republic and I despise the American Empire.

 

[JohnOsbourne]

13 hours ago, rm2551 said:

The bat-shit crazy US Imperium I don't get.

The point being, the US Government is acting irrationally in light of its own interests here.

[apantherfrommd]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:19 AM, JohnOsbourne said:

No.  In fact, I'd say it's completely delusional to think that Russia isn't obviously winning.  In fact, they've exceeded all of their pre-war aims.  They control 1/5 of Ukraine's territory.  They control more than their pre-war objectives and are well-situated to take even more if they want.  (They've basically made clear that Poland can have Galicia if they just get sensible.)  Ukraine has lost half its population (mainly from people leaving) and has to resort to appalling impressment campaigns just to get teenage and elderly conscripts for the meat grinder.  The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is 43.  Ukraine is finished as a military force and won't be joining NATO.  (Despite massive support from the US and EU, the Ukrainian army is arguably in worse shape than the Wehrmacht in 1945, which was after 4+ years of fighting the entire world.)  This is a war of attrition in which Russia clearly has the upper hand, barring American entry (which isn't gonna happen).

This says nothing of the shocking geopolitical developments, which have greatly strengthened China and gutted German industrial capacity and generally put the US Empire on shaky ground.  The real issue isn't whether Russia is winning, but rather how badly the US is losing.  

 

Great post, John.

Puppet takes power. Puppet cuts defense, R&D, and implements a "Go Green" agenda. 

Denies other countries to send jets to make a difference when it might have mattered.

Yells @ Zelinskyy by phone (June 2022) telling him he should be grateful for what he's got.

Says nuclear annihilation is less important than global warming.

Announces openly to Ukraine, 'C'mon Man, the US is out of ammo.'

Grows Russia's economy like a fatted calf, lifting the sanctions off their pipeline.

And when that's destroyed (and to this day) buying their energy via India.

Threating NATO intentionally on Russia's doorstep, opening reason to wage retaliation.

Charging Europe insane prices for energy! Absolutely causing an economic crisis.

You raise a good question. What are the intensions for this?

 

I could be wrong, but when Ukraine gained independence, were they supposed to remain neutral?

They almost had peace, but I think BJ intervened. 

Ukraine is willing to become a neutral country as part of a peace deal with Russia : NPR

[Ross62]

 

[rm2551]

21 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Ukraine is free to seek out whatever alliances it wants, but the US is under no obligation to grant them their wishes.  There is NO legitimate American interest that requires having a military alliance with the Ukraine.

Of course there is no obligation. Each country can do what it wants vis-a-vi foreign policy and alliances. I'd assume the thinking around standing with Ukraine is they are an emerging democracy, want to be a part of Europe - not the East, and are being supported as that's generally what the US and Europe would do in their own interests. Trade and diplomatic relations between democracies vs between democracies and autocracies are two completely different animals. I don't see any rationale for the US or Europe to think the better course (their own self interest) was to once again look away from Russian aggression against sovereign countries and this time let them consume Ukraine. While it may not be true Russia would then continue an expansionist agenda and Putin would push further into the Baltics, possibly Poland, it is absolutely a possibility given how Putin has talked about this publicly quite a lot so I'd back the analysts who hold this scenario as more likely than not. Don't forget, Putin was convinced along with the entire world he had the "second army" of the world and could absorb Ukraine within a week or two. The reality of his second army is the corruption at every level has completely hollowed out what actually exists vs. what's on paper. He also has talked about reconstructing the old empire. He is unabashedly pro-the old Soviet era. That's where US interests comes in.